of congestion because this is an overall scheme project with one development one developer there
are there's no burden to water or utilities and as a result when we presented this to the community
They actually supported our idea because they've been supporting other variants that we've been seeking so far with this project.
And let me just go.
So here's our letter of support.
We did sit down with the community and the developer directly.
There was an open dialogue.
They were very much in support of the project. And we see that as a result, there's no negative impact. And therefore, we ask that the board supports our project today.
Let me just present the revised plans for you. And I don't know if I have to reshare my screen.
Again, we are now looking to add bicycle parking outside, as you can see with the bubbled area.
um again the lot to the right of your screen will be coming back later that is a different
phase of the project and the lot to the left of your screen has already been permitted
um with that said i would like to call mr lomax um and if he could be promoted or be allowed to
speak at this time.
Mr. Lomax, can you please raise your hand?
Mr. Lomax?
Hold on.
Here, I see no hands at this time.
He is here.
He is here.
Thank you.
Mr. Bovet, you're an officer of the court.
Your testimony is fine.
I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Members of the board, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
In 2021, the zoning map was amended from RSA 5 to RM 1 in order to facilitate construction of affordable multifamily housing on this site.
The proposed dimensional variance is minimal and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code.
City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2022-002-116, 3618 Wall Street, Lot 20.
I vote yes.
Revised plans, one page, stamped May 18, 2022.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, yes, with proviso.
Jamil Shaheed, yes, with proviso.
good luck thank you thank you darwin uh mi 2022 000 402 7251 algon street joseph consul is the
attorney um letter of opposition from take back your neighborhood and we have our attorney for
this representing us is amy galler who will be filling in for uh hillary coming back in now
as a chair as a panelist chair okay mr chair what happened to number 12
continued thanks
hi mr console good morning board hi could hi could you state your name and spell for the
court reporter? Yes, it's Joseph Consul. That's C-O-N-S-O-L-E. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client in
the relationship to the property? Yes, board. My client is Sandra Rodriguez. She's the owner of
the property. All right. And our vice chair, Carl Tenere, has a few questions. Hi, Mr. Consul. Do
agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed
the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the
rco and do you have a letter yes count okay you may proceed and please begin to share your screen
is my packet up i had clicked this the share it is up okay all right good morning board again
joe console here on 7251 algon avenue the property owner is sandra rodriguez as mentioned
she purchased the property in august of 2016 here is an external shot of the property
The property is a 6,129 square foot corner property with a two-car garage.
It is important to note, and I can show you on this atlas here, that this property is twice as big as the other RSA3 zoned properties in the area, and the only one that contains a two-car garage.
My packet contains the refusal, the letter from the RCO, photos of the interior and exterior of the property, and plans for the property, as well as the other required documents.
So turning to the refusal on page four, the refusal here is for a two-unit approval on an existing duplex.
As I said, the property is zoned RSA 3.
the property is set up as a duplex one one bedroom and one two bedroom unit and according to the city
archive has been approved as a duplex since at least 2001. i am showing you now the first two
unit rental license that existed on the property from 2001 until 2010. now i'm showing you the
second two-unit rental license that existed on the property from 2010 until 2015.
Going back to my packet, I'll briefly skip ahead just to bring this point home a little bit.
In our pictures submitted in our packet, you can see the meters and the heaters showing the setup for two units, as well as a common area.
In our pictures submitted in our packet, you can see the meters and the heaters.
These are not new pieces of equipment, and there's two of everything.
Okay. Okay. As I mentioned, from 2001 until 2015, the property consistently had two unit rental licenses.
However, in 2012, there was an approval to use one of the residential units as a family daycare.
That application is part of what has resulted in the problems Ms. Rodriguez is having today.
As my client will attest, Ms. Rodriguez bought the property in 2016 and was very green to the Philadelphia process.
She will attest to the fact that everything involved in the purchase process confirmed to her that the property was a legitimate two-unit building because at the time of the purchase, it was.
it was after this purchase that she made some errors that are causing her the problem she is
having today most importantly she did not realize how important it was to renew the two-unit rental
license after the purchase she moved her son into one of the units with the intent that she would
move down to Philly and keep the tenants in the other unit the intent was to have her family live
in one unit for an indefinite period of time after which she would rent it out again so she thought
she only needed one rental license since she was only renting one unit. So as you can see on the
screen, shortly after she purchased it in December of 2016, she pulled a one-unit rental license.
Her next mistake, the property had been receiving from the city mailings and tax bills for the
daycare that had been licensed in 2012. And to try to fix this problem, Sandra hired an expediter
to file something to remove the daycare designation from the property. So in 2018,
what he ultimately filed was a mistake. This is a use permit, which functionally reduced the
unit count to one. However, my client will attest that this was likely a mistake brought on by a
language barrier experienced by the person that she hired. Again, the property is and always has
been laid out as a duplex. And I'll show you some pictures of the property now.
Just scrolling through them.
There are outstanding violations on this property that my client is trying to fix. However,
we're stalled at the two-unit approval process we are seeking right now. And once we get that
approval, she can address those code violations that need to be addressed. We met with the RCO
twice. The second time, they asked for a walkthrough, which we provided. The RCO,
it was dismissive of approving the project from the get-go, despite them seeing the layout in
person of the two units, the older rental licenses, all of the meters and such. They
we're not willing to consider this request. We are hopeful that the evidence we're providing
and the testimony my client will just provide will help sway the board's opinion here.
The fact is, it's a 6,000-plus square foot corner property with a two-car garage.
It's twice as big, clearly has been approved for two units for many years in the past,
and has not been converted from such. With that, I'd like to call my client,
Ms. Sandra Rodriguez to raise her hand.
Ms. Rodriguez, please
unmute yourself away for the chair.
Can you hear me?
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
You're breaking up.
Okay. My name is Sandra Rodriguez.
Could you spell for the court reporter?
Oh, yes. S-A-N-D-R-A, last name Rodriguez, R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-Z as in zebra.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Proceed.
Good morning, Ms. Rodriguez. First of all, have you heard my testimony so far?
Do you agree with what I've said and adopt it as if it was your own?
I have just a couple of questions for you that I'd like you to just make some things
clear for the board.
Could you please describe everything that indicated to you when you purchased the property that
it was a duplex at the time you bought it?
Yes. Well, so the house was on the website, Realtor, Redfin, Zillow, everywhere. It was a multifamily property. Also, my Realtor showed me rental licenses for two units.
Well, so the house was on the website Realtor Red...
When I saw the house, I saw, you know, the meters, the layout was for two apartments, two kitchens, you know, two car garage.
Everything indicated it was a two family house.
Thank you. Could you explain to the board why you pulled a single family rental license in 2016?
Well, the intention, whenever the house, the intention was for it to be like a family house for me and my son.
I couldn't move as I planned at that time, but my son was in the house for many years.
So I didn't need a rental license for that because he was my son and I've been going, you know, back and forth to the house.
So it was only one unit that needed the rental license.
Okay. Did you understand at that time that that could have some detrimental effect in the future, you trying to get the two-unit license?
Okay. And could you explain to the board finally what the expediter did in 2018 that you had hired? What was your intent and what was the result?
You're breaking up a little bit.
Oh, sorry. Can you hear me now?
so when I realized the house was like a business and it was not really because it was a daycare
there uh that you know that was from previous and I had no knowledge of I you know I asked my
contractor to go and take away that because obviously it was a family house and um like you
mentioned like I guess the language barrier because my contractor speaks mostly Spanish um
Um, so, you know, it made a mistake that, um, you know, to convert the house to a single
family was never the intention when, you know, uh, upon my request.
Did you do, did you do anything physically to alter the, the, the layout of the property?
Uh, is there anything else you'd like to add to the board before we close your testimony?
No, I think we've covered pretty much everything.
Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez.
Questions, questions from the board.
no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or
comments from the virtual audience
chair we have dylan mahoney with his hand up
mr mahoney you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
thank you mr mahoney didn't i swear swear you earlier today yes sir okay just state your name
and proceed um dylan mahoney uh from the office of councilman sherelle parker um we received a
letter of opposition from the coordinating rco take back your neighborhood and also some outreach
from other near neighbors who attended the meeting and frankly we're concerned about the um about the
maintenance of the property and um would prefer to see the the house move forward as a single
family home and accordingly we are in opposition to the to the granting of the variance thank you
thank you um planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city
planning commission members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
existing rsa3 single family zoning at this location however as we've seen in the testimony
here the property file shows a prior legal use as a two-family dwelling and the configuration
of the existing building is consistent with this use the city planning commission recommends that
the word grant this variance thank you mi 2022 000 402 7251 algon avenue i vote yes
carol tennery my vote is yes thomas hollowan my vote is yes
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you board thank you um is there anyone in the virtual
audience whose case has not been called
this morning?
Chair, I see no hands
at this time.
Thank you, everyone.
A lot of good work done this morning.
See everybody at 2 o'clock.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
We're recording.
And we live, Chair, so you can continue
with your speech. Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman and I will be chairing this afternoon's
EBA hearings. With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair. Present, Mr. Chairman. Ismael Shahid,
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Ismail Shahid, our Board Secretary.
our board secretary.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Thomas Holliman, our Board Member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And James Snell, our Board Member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also here is our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkit, and our Board Attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Before we begin, here's our virtual format.